In the middle of December 2015, Clementine Ford participated in raising national media attention to a domestic violence case that appeared to be being ignored by the NSW Police Force. Ashlee Savins was allegedly assaulted by her boyfriend, Justin Toro. Ashlee’s housemate, Ellie Sutton, provided Facebook messages between Ashlee and Justin, in which Justin appears to admit his guilt, to the police. The police refuse to act on the messages and say that it is simply a case of “he said, she said”.

Ashlee Savins was allegedly assaulted by her boyfriend, Justin Toro. Ashlee’s housemate, Ellie Sutton, provided Facebook messages between Ashlee and Justin, in which Justin appears to admit his guilt, to the police. The police allegedly refused to act on the messages and say that it is simply a case of “he said, she said”.

Here we see Clementine Ford learn the meaning of social pressure regarding her double standards and sexist attitudes.

Clementine has since closed her Facebook profile due to emotional stress and time demands.

Apparently being called out for her double standards on a social media site with a block feature is just to much for her to handle.

These images were sent to us by one of our readers who wishes to remain anonymous. Special thanks to that individual. If you are aware of content that you would like to see published on this site please contact us at knightrunnermra@gmail.com

“Clementine Ford is a freelance writer, broadcaster and public speaker based in Melbourne. She writes on feminism, pop culture and social issues.” So reads her profile on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s website.

On December 1st, major Australian news outlets reported that Ford has been receiving a torrent of abuse online for earlier reporting a man to his employer for making sexist comments to her and racist jokes elsewhere. The man’s employment was terminated as a result and a secret Facebook community was set up by other women “in support” of Ford. Their aim: to report other men with the aim of causing harm to their reputation and livelihood.

There is no question that the original man’s comment was inappropriate and that he should not have advertised his place of employment before commenting. However, it does not justify Ford’s actions resulting in his dismissal, seeing that he was not representing his employer when he spoke, as well as the fact that plenty of other, less drastic measures were available to her, such as the Facebook block function or police mediation. Two wrongs do not make a right.

And so, the time is nigh for the all-seeing eye atop the angry lighthouse in the bowels of MRA Mordor, to shine its withering light onto this woman’s work and tell the world that it is her – Ford, that should be fired from her job as a columnist. She is a bad reporter, who cites fraudulent sources, does not do her own research, quotes out of context and suffers from borderline potty-mouth evident in the emergence of excretory themes in almost every article she commits to the public realm.

Behold.A lesson for men’s rights activists on real oppression, June 19, 2014. In this article, Ford covers the International Conference on Men’s Issues, held in Detroit that year. She muses on why the Men’s Human Rights movement cannot be trusted to discuss men’s rights and why she believes they are wrong, nay, evil misogynists. This article is a jumble of ignorance masquerading as informed opinion, but it is when Ford attempts to cite statistics to support what she is saying that we find outright fraud. She writes;

…only 3 per cent of those accused of rape will ever be convicted” and links this website as her source.

This writer was at first confused as the site quotes a different figure – 2%. Then I looked up the link as it was around the date of Ford’s article. Does @Neil Gaiman knows he’s featured here (on RAINN, not AVfM)? If not, Neil, I’m sorry, I loved “American Gods” and I think you are one of the best contemporary English writers. You might want to talk to your agent about this though…

The figure in question has changed, due to an update in source, and more on that later. But all the figures here have been revised down, most significantly the first one, despite citing the same study. How is this possible? Did RAINN misread the study? Also, what is this Justice Department and how is it different to the Department of Justice?

It turns out that this study does not appear to exist. The closest to it, that I can find is a paper titled “Criminal Victimization 2011”, on p8 of which one can find the following table:

The figure most pertinent to the final one appears to be the one for 2010 – a 49% report rate for “rape/sexual assault.”

Next, we look at the final score – the reported 2% or 3% of total convictions of reported rape. The later study titled “Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009 – Statistical Tables” (note the year – 2009, the closest to the reporting figure for 2010 above) allows one to re-construct the chain of statistics for prosecution of rape allegations. These are poignantly known as “attrition rates” in other literature. 49% reported to police * 48% that proceed to trial * 68% conviction rate * 89% of whom are jailed results in 14% of all rape accusations resulting in a conviction. Not two or three per cent. I hope the reader will forgive me if I neglect to look up the June 20, 2014 source, seeing that RAINN appears to be pulling figures out of thin air and Ford does not bother to check their sources or to look up comparable statistics on her own.

The Australian Law Reform Commission’s 2010 paper titled “Family Violence – A National Legal Response (ALRC Report 114)” sheds some light on this matter for Ford’s home country. Its Section 26 offers a glimpse of the situation somewhat erratically broken down by state and age of victim, but very usefully for the same basic time-period as the American reports cited above. All the crucial elements are present – trial and prosecution with reporting figures available from Section 24 of the same paper.

Therefore, the Australian figures from around 2007 are as follows: 30% reported to police * ~17% (between 15-19%) proceeded to trial * 61.3% were found to be or pleaded guilty. This document can deliver the desired 3% figure, if one chooses a lower conviction estimate, which in that fluctuates between 20-80%. And if one looks at the 2005 PSS study (p21) , the reporting rate is even lower – 19%, resulting in a 2% conviction figure.

I strongly doubt that Ford meant to quote the ALRC but referenced RAINN with its “Justice Department” statistics instead. Even if that was the case, this article has been online for more than a year and no-one appears to have spotted the error or bothered to inform the publisher or the readers and print a correction of American statistics as relevant to an American men’s rights convention – the article’s subject, or analyse and reference Australian statistics instead. A measure that would have “paid off”, had it been attempted – they happen to coincide with Ford’s 3% claim. Coincidence naturally not being evidence, but I digress.

Rape is a serious issue. The least helpful way of discussing it is by means of false statistics. Behind each percentile is a person, let us not forget that.

Ford’s piece is notable for one other major gaffe – the most quote-mined quote by Paul Elam, justifying whomever is so inclined to accuse him of being a “rape apologist.” It originates from this article dating from 2010, which has long since sported a disclaimer, advising the reader to thoroughly consider its context. This is a slanderous, uninformed claim, unworthy of an ABC reporter.

Likewise, the infantile, crass language that Ford inserts into almost all her articles appears here in paragraph 4. It is the literary equivalent of drawing a penis on one’s school desk, something that this woman has not been able to outgrow in her thirty or more years of existence. As she puts it in her short biography – now removed, but still available through reference by ABC and preserved by the Google archive;

Please give her a job and/or some kind of paid work as she is now 30 years old, and her father no longer finds it cute when she asks him for money.”

Yes please, somewhere in the private sector, and away from keyboard.

Clementine Ford is a fraud and should be fired from her job as a columnist for the ABC or any other publication for which she writes.

The release of David Benatar’s scholarly exposition of the “Second Sexism”[1] has caused a deluge of articles by feminists, eager to shout down his achievement. This scholarly work distributed by the renowned academic publishing house Blackwell has, rather than attracting critical reviews, been confronted with standard feminist lies and derision.[2]

None of these feminists offer any serious analysis of Benatar’s well developed and referenced arguments. In fact, many appear to not even have read the book. They attack the concept that unfair discrimination against men could even exist and then grasp the opportunity to distract the agenda with stale factoids inflating female victimhood.

This is exactly what junior Radfem journalist “howling Clementine Ford[3]” did in her opinion piece titled “Men are marginalised, claims book” published at stuff.co.nz.[4]

She howls:

Before you laugh yourself into a coma at the desk where you’re no doubt earning two thirds of your male counterpart’s salary.

Ford demonstrates her ignorance of formal logic; claiming something is humorous is not an argument against its validity. Still, in this case, it provides her an opportunity to append the repeatedly repudiated myth of a gender wage gap. [5]

She continues:

Benatar’s thesis therefore attempts philosophically to address the ways in which men ALSO experience discrimination in a rigidly patriarchal society.

Here Ford resorts to capital letters, rather than literary skill, to shout rather than howl, that the word “also” is important. Indeed had she bothered to read the work she would know that Benatar clearly states:

This book is about the second sexism. Accordingly it is not about that sexism of which females are the primary victims. That is not because I deny the existence of such sexism. It clearly exists and has existed for a very long time.

Ford finds it offensive that any attention should be given to discrimination against males and such offence is intended as an argument against such a study. She distorts Benatar’s thesis by misrepresenting it as relating to “rigidly patriarchal society.” Most of, but not all the focus of the book relates to circumstances in highly pro female western societies and the term patriarchy/ or patriarchal does not have a single occurrence in the book (I know because I have a searchable electronic copy). Ford simply invented this.

Benatar correctly states that discrimination against women has been extensively researched and written about, but that researching and describing discrimination against men has rarely occurred in academia. He notes:

Discrimination against females has been the subject of almost all the discussion about sexism. I do not plan to add to it here.

There is so little formal research into discrimination against men that the true extent of it remains to be elucidated.

Benatar has structured The Second Sexism to establish certain sequential aims. In the introduction he clearly defines the terms used and scope of his work, and contrasts alternate terminologies and meanings used elsewhere. For example whist everyone knows what we mean by sexism in common usage, academics define and apply the term in different ways. In Chapter 2 he presents the source data and describes the instances of male disadvantage he will later examine in more detail. Chapter 3 attempts to understand why these disadvantages have arisen, looking at beliefs, attitudes, biologic and social factors, whist chapter 4 seeks to determine if these examples of male disadvantage are due to unfair sex discrimination.

The 5th chapter is devoted to addressing the various objections likely to be raised by those who would deny or minimise the second sexism. These include in addition to the well-known logical fallacies, the inversion argument where examples of discrimination against men are contorted and claimed to be examples of discrimination against women.

The cost of the dominance argument is that men must pay in some way for their supposedly privileged position in society. The distraction argument, in which instances of male disadvantage may be begrudgingly accepted but are considered unimportant or unworthy of attention as female disadvantage, is considered a more pressing problem – finally uses the technicality of defining discrimination as a way to deny anti-male sexism. Typically feminists deny that members of dominant groups (to which men are naturally considered to belong) are by virtue of their dominance unable to suffer discrimination. Ford and others have not disappointed him.

In response to a list of examples of discrimination against men, and noting that whist many men occupy positions at the top echelons of society, a similar number are at the rock bottom.

She claims:

Evidently, this is supposed to cancel out discrimination against women by invoking the rules of the world’s most logically unsound game of Rock, Paper, *Headdesk*.[sic]

This is a distraction argument. Clementine, the book is about discrimination against men, get used to it! What relevance rock, paper, scissors headdesk has is beyond me. It is as logically unsound as using asterisks for quotes.

Ford notes in relation to the fact that men are more likely to be victims of violence that this is “usually at the hands of other men, but that’s apparently beside the point.” This tired retort of course denies women’s complicity in violence enacted on, or by men, on their behalf (see JTO’s Violence by Proxy[6]) as well as the substantial violence against men perpetrated directly by women.

Family violence is one of the areas where gender bias has historically focused research predominately if not entirely on women’s experiences of violence. Despite this there is a growing body of evidence that women are equally if not more violent in interpersonal relationships as men.

We know in Australia that at least one in three victims of family violence are male.[7] The academic and scientific literature is clear that women make up the majority of perpetrators of child abuse and neglect[8]including murder of ones own child or children. Perhaps Ford would consider these victims “beside the point” and unworthy of assistance or redress as well?

She continues:

But it would be folly to write Benatar off as some kind of mad troll suddenly lumped with a megaphone and a mission. Unlike some of the more fervently frothing men’s advocates barking up trees they can’t see the wood for.

And

Unfortunately, so used have we gotten to deflecting the spittle that shoots forth from these self-fancying modern day slaves that Benatar’s argument will likely (and perhaps understandably) be met by exhausted ranting and cynical eyerolls.

Name calling and describing the disparagement with which some feminists might receive his work does nothing to argue against or negate its inherent truths. In fact the reactionary and intellectually vacant proliferation of feminist tripe the book has generated, is likely to draw extensive attention, to what is destined to become a classic for advocates of men’s rights and true gender equity.

Perhaps the greatest condemnation of Ford’s hypocrisy should be directed to her comments about war and war deaths.

She writes;

While we could argue that the price of men starting wars is that they have to fight them, is that really the answer? ‘Men’ don’t start wars – governments do. Governments are typically overrun by men and structures of power that favour masculinity. And the people who start wars very rarely actually fight in them.

So is it sexism against men that leads to their lives being considered, in this example, more expendable? In part, yes – but unlike the discrimination experienced by women, sexism against men occurs in a counterintuitive fashion.

So Ford sees of sexism involved in the social expectation and legal compulsion of predominantly men being sent to war as a cost of dominance argument, but that’s ok because it’s only “counter intuitive” sexism. Women those bastions of intuition and compassion for life need to reject their innate humanity to condone such discrimination. They have to rationalise that having men protect and suffer violence on their behalf is worth reducing men to the role of disposable utilities because it benefits women. She then makes the following assertions:

People don’t bristle at the thought of women being sent home in body bags because women’s lives are inherently given more value; thousands of years of history has a pretty solid company line on this. They bristle because women aren’t considered naturally capable of Getting The Job Done – because, in an obscure twist of logic, they lack the natural masculine attributes of strength that apparently help men both protect their fellow humans, and kill them.

No, Clementine, evolutionary biology and psychology tell us that women are the “reproductive bottleneck.” For a group to survive you can expend most of the males but still repopulate if enough females are protected, which is exactly what has happened repeatedly in history. Women have had the privilege of exemption from conflicts that threatened the group and that has always been the “company line.”

Yes, it may be a biologic fact that men in general are stronger than women (nothing to do with twists of logic), but women’s inferior strength has not precluded feminists arguing that they should have equal opportunity in any other occupation in which strength may be a prerequisite; firefighting and law enforcement, for example. It is unfettered hypocrisy to claim biological determinism when it suits and social construction when it does not in justifying female privilege and entitlement.

Next she presents a barrage of blatant lies:

(if Benatar wants to argue extremes of discrimination in men’s education and economics, he can begin by addressing the fact that women make up 66% of the world’s illiterate adults; 3 out of 4 fatalities in war are women and children; gender based violence is the biggest cause of death of women aged between 15 and 44; and that even while men may be being sent to war, tens of thousands of women are being raped as a weapon of it.)

Another distraction argument, Benatar is not obliged to address any of the false stats you quote, but I will.

If you want to look at literacy rates, look at western feminised countries where boys consistently fall behind girl’s literacy ratings.

Where did you pluck the 3 out of 4 fatalities in war figure from I wonder?[9] Which war or wars are you talking about? Given you are an Australian how many Australian women and children do you believe have been killed in wars compared to deaths of Australian men? Of course when counting children just add them to women because there are never any boys in the civilian casualty figures and children are of course possessions of women. Show me where in the Australian or US military doctrine rape is listed as a weapon, or as tactic? How many cases of alleged or proven rape by Australian or US forces can you document?

As for gender based violence being the “biggest” cause of death for women aged between 14 and 44, that statistic relates to “death, disease and disability” most of it is“disease and disability” and even then the methodology in calculating this“burden of disease figure” is at best dodgy.

At one point Ford states “it’s not a competition” but in the following sentence is obliged to point out that “women undoubtedly suffer the lion’s share of patriarchal oppression.” Nope it’s not a competition but women win hands down anyway in the victimhood stakes and don’t you sexist men forget it.

Sorry Clementine, male disadvantage is real. It is often due to unfair sex discrimination and a growing number of men and women are becoming aware of it, studying it and informing others. Your fallacious illogical bleatings will never stop that. If anything, bigots like you are simply fuelling the men’s rights fire. Please keep it up.

There is a line in that magnificent film, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, which has stayed with me since the first time I heard it. Randle McMurphy, a new inpatient at the asylum, is called to the office of the administrator-Dr Spivey. He is there to discuss his progress and behaviour.

Dr Spivey says: “Do you like it here?”

McMurphy searches for the right words and after a long pause, replies:
“That fuckin’ nurse…she ain’t honest.” He is referring to the woman who runs the ward he has been placed in.

To this day, I get goosebumps when Nicholson speaks this line. It articulates so succinctly how I have felt about so many feminists of great repute. These women and men are called courageous, compassionate and inspirational. Most of them would sit very comfortably alongside Nurse Ratched.

Like her, they have a talent for appearing sincere, caring and trustworthy. Few people would dare to question their integrity or what truly motivates them unless they are willing to be ostracised and branded.

As we have seen these past few decades, very few people are willing to point out the obvious fact- the emperor has no clothes. To do so can cost you your job, reputation and friends.

McMurphy felt the truth in his gut long before his head reached the same conclusion. “She plays a rigged game.”

Clementine Ford is one such person.

She plays a rigged game and almost always wins. A few months ago she appeared on a National TV show called The Project, to discuss the terrible problem of misogynistic abuse in the world of Facebook and Twitter.

Ford presented herself as a brave woman trying to speak up for the rights of an oppressed minority. In carrying out this sacred mission she is subjected to a torrent of abuse.

The panel predictably allowed Clementine to speak of the online abuse of women and girls without interruption, for surely we all know that only females are subjected to abuse and only males abuse in the backwaters of the internet.

This woman sat there playing the victim, seemingly bewildered by the abuse which flows in her direction, and yet the hosts of The Project and many viewers would have been fully aware that this “victim” has meted out her own venomous abuse in her powerful and privileged position as a journalist in one of our biggest daily newspapers. When the conservative Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, was elected to lead our government, Ms Ford created t-shirts with the word Fuck Abbott emblazoned in bold letters across the front. The sale of these t-shirts was promoted by her paper, The Age.

You must bear in mind that this same woman had for months written copiously about the horrific abuse directed at our first female PM-abuse she claimed, came from a source of female hatred rather than the fact that Julia Gillard was possibly the most incompetent, dishonest politician to lead our country.

Was Ford sanctioned or sacked? Of course not! The t-shirts were worn proudly around university campuses and protest rallies by the very students who had been condemning any criticism of Gillard with a vitriolic fervour that bordered on manic.

Had a well known conservative journalist by the name of Andrew Bolt (a man Ford detests) produced Fuck Julia Gillard t-shirts and promoted them in his paper, the very universe would have imploded. I can assure you that Bolt, as powerful as he is, would have been banned from all forms of media and denounced by Ford and her cohorts as a vile, women hating devil.

Who holds the power in our society?

This Clementine Ford, is the same woman who proudly places the motto, We Bathe in Male Tears , at the head of her Face book page. When this is raised, it is referred to as satire. Again, I don’t believe a male journalist would retain his job if he had a Face Book page claiming he bathed in women’s tears.

This is the woman who holds all men responsible for the crimes of a tiny minority and very carefully cherry picks examples of male violence to present on her page as proof of the inherent toxicity of the masculine species. Her abhorrence of violence never extends to the female variety. When eight children were butchered by a mother last year there was absolutely no reference to it on her page.

Like Nurse Ratched, she goads, pokes, taunts and humiliates males. There are many men who feel the outrage we feel here at AVfM, but lack the ability to convey their anger and burning frustration at this daily baiting in a calm, coherent or articulate manner. They revert to the childish, age old practise of name calling in an attempt to push back against her vicious bigotry. They resort to unacceptable language and occasionally stupid threats. Yet even Ford concedes that most of this abuse comes from 14 and 15 year old schoolboys.

I have no doubt, Ford welcomes such abuse. It is what she craves, for like us, she knows it carries no threat, but it does provide her with more ammunition which she delights in using to prove her theory – that males are toxic.

As a primary school teacher, I supervise the school yard during recess and lunch breaks every day. Almost every break, there is a conflict. Some involve physical abuse and bullying. During the 35 years I have been teaching I believe that in 90% of the incidents there has been mutual culpability in the abuse which took place.

The crying “victim” approaches and says they have been punched or verbally abused. Sometimes they say they have been excluded from a game and told to go away. We walk together until we locate the culprit and a conversation begins.

“What happened?” I ask.

The answer usually reveals that the victim had refused to follow the rules of the game, had initiated the verbal abuse or even begun the physical altercation and came off second best. Often I discover that the “perpetrator” was being teased and lashed out at the person. Is this acceptable behaviour? It is not, but it is certainly something I understand and presents a very different picture to the one painted by the crying child who claimed to be the victim.

Occasionally, it is a simple case of a nasty bully picking on an entirely innocent victim. This however is not a common occurrence.

So we return to Clementine and her claims. She has done exactly what so many children have done in the school yard. It is a dirty, disingenuous game. She has poked and poked at the bear and when he lashes out, with claws extended, she squeals in feigned shock.

It is so ironic that Ford constantly writes and speaks about our patriarchal society and the power men hold. This comes from a woman who has a voice on National television programs and in major daily newspaper. Ford is a woman who rubs shoulders with Police Commissioners and can openly promote the abuse of the most powerful person in the land without fear of retribution.

No man can speak out about the rights of men in any mainstream forum unless he is the token MRA brought into the studio to be mocked and torn apart by five feminist panellists. No-one actually listens to any person who attempts to speak on behalf of men. It is simply a blood sport to have the occasional man offered up as a sacrificial lamb on radio or television.

So where can men turn in order to feel they are being heard? They go online and finally they have an opportunity to express the disgust and justified rage they feel as they endure the endless, daily misandric bombardment in our mainstream media.

Ford has to drag up comments from anonymous trolls in the murky swamps of cyberspace in order to provide proof of misogyny. We are subjected to vicious lies, smears and accusations from journalists and politicians and even the Australian of the Year and not one person in the media has the courage to speak out against this bigotry. Then people have the temerity to wonder why there is a boiling rage “out there” in the community.

Who really has the power?

In a powerful scene in the final moments of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, McMurphy snaps when Ratched taunts a stuttering inmate and reduces him to a stammering wreck with her barbed tongue and veiled threat to humiliate him. This young man takes his life only moments after the wounding words of Nurse Ratched have torn him asunder.

When Randle McMurphy sees the lifeless body of a boy he had loved and nurtured back to a state of self respect and confidence, he launches himself at Ratched , places his two hands around her neck and attempts to squeeze the very life from her body.

Anyone walking in on such a scene would see it all so clearly. There, before you, is a highly respected, dedicated nurse, trying to do a difficult job, and one of the crazy, brutish inmates she cares for has brutally attacked her and is attempting to end her life.

He is just another violent, toxic male.

But the observer would be wrong. What we have is a powerful, controlling, manipulative woman, who delights in playing tortuous mind games with her vulnerable patients, being attacked by the one man who sees her abuse of power and cruelty and wants to put an end to it.

Do we condone such violence? Of course we do not. It is the wrong way to express your hurt, anger and frustration. But if we are going to move beyond the evil notion of masculine toxicity as the fundamental cause of all evil and decrease the number of violent incidents in the home then we must understand the factors which contribute to it.

Of course, McMurphy is taken away and reduced to a shell of the man he was. A lobotomy is regarded as the most suitable way to deal with this problematic patient.

And what becomes of Nurse Ratched? She recovers quickly from her assault and is very soon back on the ward, controlling the men who have been placed under her care.

No doubt she is as respected and admired as much as she ever was, much like the many feminists in Australia’s media.

If you haven’t seen this beautiful film, please take the time to watch it. If you have, please watch the uplifting final scene once again for a spiritual pick me up. It never fails. The tide will turn.

Poor Jack Killbride (what a perfectly misogynist name!). He’s a good feminist ally, who says all the right words at all the right times, keeping his feminist overlords from ball-sacking him too often. Sadly, December 8th wasn’t one of the days feminists decided to practice restraint. Jack had the temerity to suggest that perhaps Clementine Ford and her insane, crude bullying of men on social media is hurting more than helping.

I wholeheartedly condemn the actions of the men who have threatened and abused feminist writer Clementine Ford. I also commend the decision of one particular boss who opted to terminate the contract of Mathew Nolan after his embarrassing and disgusting remarks. However, while Clementine Ford is a great advocate of the feminist movement in this country, her strategy may be doing more harm than good.

That was straying just a bit too close to reasonable for Aussie feminist commenters, who took poor Jack to task:

Feminists prove they do not engage in similar abuse by telling Jack he is garbage and insisting he fuck off. Belittling language? Check. Accusations of racism? Check. Boring and predictable? Check.

Male conversation is equivalent to masturbation. Also ‘codswallop’. Great word, honestly.

Poor Jack. At least he still gets to be a victim!

Sarcasm and more demeaning language? Ho hum.

Never forget, Jack, THAT THERE ARE NO GOOD MEN SO DON’T YOU DARE CALL YOURSELF A GOOD MAN. But feminism isn’t about gross stereotypes applied to men. Nope. Not at all.

Cherry-picking single words and ascribing malevolent intentions? Of course.

Wait, I thought there were lots of ways to ‘do’ feminism? Isn’t that what intersectionality means? Consistency would be nice. Not excusing abusive assholes like Ford would be even nicer.

Don’t forget good, old-fashioned chivalry, Jack! Your job is to help the poor wimminz, who are helpless without you. Sexism: always acceptable, if it benefits women.

tl;dr NICE TRY JACK BUT YOU ARE ONLY WELCOME IF YOU BOW DOWN TO US!

No, Jo Kay, you’ve been doing feminism exactly the way you’ve always done feminism: by screeching like hypocritical, mentally deranged cunts, even when misguided souls like Jack try to help you, and then insisting YOU are the victim.

I hope Jack is reading these comments. I hope he sees that nothing other than the absolute subjection of his entire being and relentless self-flagellation will appease these crazy harpies. And even then, maybe not.

Clementine Ford is an asshole. She’s also a woman, and a feminist. Those two things will always override the asshole part, as far as feminists are concerned. And you, Jack, will always be the enemy. You are not human in their eyes. You are a potentially useful tool for them to use and discard.

Melbourne is routinely billed in our media as the world’s most liveable city. The various groups who declare the world’s top cities don’t always agree on the number one position, but Melbourne, as well as Australia’s other major cities, always appear somewhere in the top 10 or 20. Each group has a different list of criteria for what it is that makes particular cities “the best”, but every one of them sees personal safety and low crime as crucial.

“The reality is that simply being alive constitutes a ‘dangerous situation’ for women.”

There are no points for guessing what, or should I say who, makes the most liveable city so dangerous for women:

“It is astonishing how much more offended men seem to get by the possibility that they’ll be lumped in with a group known to pose a risk to women than they are by the fact that, empirically speaking, the greatest risk to women’s lives is men.”

She goes on to tell us how women are murdered by their partners at rate of one a week. For those of you not so good with statistics, let me assist you through the murk:

One a week is 52 a year, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), in their study on Domestic / Family homicide in Australia, confirm that in the 10 years from 2002-03 to 2011-12 some 488 women, or 48.8 per year, were killed by an intimate partner.

In terms of the total women in Australia, that is 0.0006% per annum.

It is difficult to see how men are the “greatest risk”, however, when, again according to the ABS in 2013, 52 women were killed as pedestrians in traffic accidents, 1007 women were killed in accidental falls and 19,438 women died from some form of cancer.

But am I making light of the women who were murdered? Consider this heady mixture of victim-claiming while victim-blaming:

“We’re bullied for the ‘sexism’ of focusing solely on women, as if we should be prioritising the minute numbers of men who are victimised in hostile domestic situations although overwhelmingly not at risk of domestic homicide.”

She also wrings her hands like this:

“We’re chastised for not including caveats that remind people that ‘not all men’ are involved in this extensive war on women.”

Now, is she really claiming that some 8 million Australian men were involved in the murder of 52 women last year? But also consider that the Domestic / Family homicide in Australia figures put the “minute number” for men as 166 for the decade, which is 16.6 per year. So one-a-week is an “extreme war on women”, but more than one-a-month is not enough for right-thinking feminists to give a shit.

Extraordinarily, she then goes on a rant as to how unfair it all is for men to object to her fear-mongering citing of false statistics to give her drivel a disguise of scientific authority. Of course, she claims that she has “an entire folder of emails” of threats. We are to assume that this folder is big, the threats are genuine, from men, and they are not all from the same nutter. Given her use of statistics, I have my doubts.

Consider this piece of numerical magic:

“So far, 2015 has seen 35 women murdered in acts of violence, with the latest unnamed victim discovered overnight at a property in Dallas, Victoria. At least 29 of these murders are alleged to have been committed by men. The majority of these alleged perpetrators were in, or had previously been in, a form of intimate relationship with the murdered women.”

Let me help you follow the bouncing ball here. 35 becomes 29 becomes some undefined number less than 29. Now, this article was written on May 12, 2015 – so we have had 20 weeks for the year thus far. Less than 29 divided by 20 is something like one-a-week. Right?

“As the statistics stand now, two women are killed every week in Australia as a result of violence.”

Did you miss it? Are you wondering how we got from one a week to two? It’s the “as a result of violence” that requires your attention. This figure has nothing to do with domestic violence. She’s now including women being killed by strangers, and maybe even killed by other women.

The next bit might upset Dr. Michael Flood and all the Good Men at White Ribbon Australia:

“In regards to men’s violence against women, [men are] praised for even acknowledging the problem, festooned with compliments and gratitude simply for offering what should be the fairly standard view that ‘it’s not on mate’… And they do this because it’s a way of maintaining control and power, insisting that other men are the enemy but that this man must be freely accepted as a protector and ally.”

Even when you try to help them, boys, it’s oppression.

Most bizarre of all is Ford’s next complaint:

“Women still aren’t allowed to take ownership over our own defense and protection.”

What does this mean? Who’s not allowing them? The oppressive men? The Good Feminist men? All men?

But even more, is she calling women to real action? Not just a poetry reading, or a season of the “Vagina Monologues”, but real action? Is she calling for women to take responsibility for their “own defense and protection”?

Don’t be silly.

“Men’s violence is the problem. Let’s name it, and let’s end it.”

For those not familiar with the Sacred Babble, allow me to interpret:

Ford’s work, having whined and complained enough to make her sound important, is now done. She has completed the gargantuan task of naming “it”.

“Let’s end it” is the cue for the Good Feminist Men, now that they have been suitably chastised for their preening and posturing and oppressing, to get on with the task of actually ending the “extensive war on women”. Preferably, they will do this in a quiet, efficient manner that leaves the women blissfully unaware of the civil rights abuses and carnage that comes from blaming 8 million men for the actions of a few.

I wonder how Tourism Australia’s campaign, “There’s nothing like Australia” sells the feminist moral panic to potential international visitors? The City of Melbourne’s own website makes out that Melbourne is a great place to visit, without any warnings to women about the “extensive war” being waged.

Weren’t the other countries concerned when their women came back abused, dead or worse? Or are those countries also run by Patriarchy and they thought it was all part of good international relations?

In which case, what’s going to happen when the Good Feminist Men appoint a Misogyny-Finder General to conduct secret tribunals to rid us, or at least women, from this manufactured scourge.

Won’t those Patratriarchs be worried when their men are incarcerated or, worse, indoctrinated, due to trumped up charges of oppression?

I can see the new campaign now “Australia – Safety for Women, Lessons for Men.” And Melbourne, the World’s Most Ideologically Correct City.

Clementine Ford in the News

Ford Tweets in Anger

Clementine Ford tweeted this image to the Australian television program "Sunrise" after they insinuated that women and girls who electronically distribute nude images of themselves may play a role in those images being misused.